Melbourne City Council MINUTES

Melbourne City Council

MINUTES

Meeting Number 5 Tuesday 26 March 2013 5:30pm

Council Chamber Level 2 Melbourne Town Hall

PRESENT Lord Mayor, Robert Doyle Deputy Lord Mayor, Susan Riley Councillor Richard Foster Councillor Rohan Leppert Councillor Kevin Louey Councillor Stephen Mayne Councillor Cathy Oke Councillor Beverley Pinder-Mortimer Councillor Jackie Watts Councillor Arron Wood

APOLOGY

Councillor Ken Ong

Confirmed at the meeting of Council on Tuesday 30 April 2013

Council Meeting — 26 March 2013 1. COMMENCEMENT OF MEETING AND APOLOGIES

The meeting commenced at 5.30pm.

The Chair, Lord Mayor, Robert Doyle read the following acknowledgment statement:

I welcome Councillors, Management and members of the public in attendance to the City of Melbourne. I especially welcome former Lord Mayor Trevor Hug gard who is also in attendance. We respectfully acknowledge that we are meeting on the traditional land of the Ku/in Nation. This place is now known by the name of Melbourne. Melbourne is one of the great multicultural cities of the world and a significant meeting place. For the Kuhn Nation, Melbourne has always been an important meeting place and a location for events of social, educational, sporting and cultural significance.

The Chair, Lord Mayor, Robert Doyle advised: • the agenda comprised of: )> one Report from Committee; > thirteen Reports from Management, eight of which were confidential; > three items of General Business; and • an apology had been received from Cr Ong.

2. DISCLOSURES OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

The Chair, Lord Mayor, Robert Doyle advised that conflicts of interest would be disclosed as they arose.

3. CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING

Moved: Cr Wood

That the minutes of open Council Meeting No. 4, held on Tuesday 26 February 2013 be confirmed.

Seconded: Cr Pinder-Mortimer

The motion was put and carried unanimously with the following Councillors present: The Chair, Lord Mayor, Robert Doyle, Deputy Lord Mayor, Susan Riley, Councillors Foster, Leppert, Louey, Mayne, Oke, Pinder- Mortimer, Watts and Wood.

4. MATTERS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING

There were no matters arising from the minutes of the previous open meeting.

ITEM OF CORRESPONDENCE

The Chair, Lord Mayor, Robert Doyle advised that as at 3pm the following submission had been received in accordance with the Council's Conduct of Meetings Local Law 2010.

In relation to Agenda Items 7.1, 7.2 and 7.3:

Items of Correspondence: • Anthony van der Craats, resident.

STATUS OF CONFIDENTIAL ITEMS

There were no confidential items brought forward for consideration in the open session of the meeting.

Council Meeting —26 March 2013 2 5. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEE

There was one Report from Committee for consideration in the open session.

FUTURE MELBOURNE COMMITTEE (Finance and Governance Portfolio)

5.1 Amendment to Council's Meeting Procedures Code

The purpose of this report was to recommend that Council adopt the amended Meeting Procedures Code.

Incorporating comments made by Cr Leppert, Cr Mayne moved the following motion:

Moved: Cr Mayne

1. That Council: 1.1 endorse the attached Meeting Procedures Code, but with clauses 3.15 (d) (iii) and 3.15 (j) (iii) replaced with the words "If a question is allowed, the Chairperson will, where practical, refer the question to the relevant portfolio holder. In responding to any question, a Councillor may call on a Council officer to answer the question, or elect to answer the question him/herself or may take the question on notice to seek additional information on the issue"; 1.2 note that the effect of these amendments is to: 1.2.1. remove the discretion provided to a Special Committee to consider public questions; 1.2.2. facilitate a change in the treatment of public questions at meetings of Special Committees such that: 1.2.2.1. each segment shall be of a duration of up to 15 minutes; 1.2.2.2. individual questions of up to 90 seconds in duration will be permitted; and 1.2.2.3. questions are referred where practical to the relevant portfolio holder in the first instance; and 1.2.3 make audio recordings of open sessions of Council and Committee meetings accessible through the City of Melbourne websites, whilst authorising a Special Committee or Council to delete from recordings objectionable, offensive, defamatory or inappropriate comments; and 1.3. note that a notice of the amended code will be published in the Victorian Government Gazette.

Seconded: Cr Leppert

Cr Mayne made the following key comments: • these amendments are about tidying up for the allowance of greater use of public questions at Future Melbourne Committee meetings; • the allocation of 15 minutes at the beginning and the end of Future Melbourne Committee meetings will set a record of any Council in Australia by allowing four separate opportunities each month for the public to ask questions; and • placing the audio recordings of all open Future Melbourne Committee frteetings and Council meetings on the web, will provide greater transparency.

Cr Leppert made the following key comments: • the recommendation from the Future Melbourne Committee two weeks ago was to make various changes to the Meeting Procedures Code, one of which was to refer public questions to portfolio holders in the first instance where practicable; • this is a good move to increase accountability of our portfolio holders as well as the Chair and Officers who already have provisions in the Meeting Procedures Code to have questions asked of them; • for some reason it was not reflected in the Council report recommendation so am taking the opportunity to ensure that the Meeting Procedures Code reflects that portfolio holders have questions referred to them; • the rest of this motion is the end of a good process to insert principles of transparency and accountability into Council meeting procedures;

Council Meeting -26 March 2013 3 • Council has an opportunity to hear more public questions at Future Melbourne Committee meetings than before as well as an opportunity for the audio of meetings to be put up online; and • thanks to all who have helped this come about.

The Lord Mayor, Robert Doyle made the following key comments: • commend Councillors on this motion and in particular Cr Mayne and Cr Leppert; • it is a good thing to have fresh eyes with a new Council to see how we can do things better, particularly with this goal of transparency that Council has; • this recommendation is the best result of fresh eyes on the way we can do things better; • there is now more responsibility placed on the Chair, to undertake greater scrutiny of the questions asked and the ability to rule those out of order, which I intend to take very seriously; • the Chair will also be expected to make a call regarding appropriate or inappropriate content or to refer matters to the portfolio chair at meetings; • this is question and answer time, not debate time, so intend to be firm about not allowing questions to descend into debate; and • the best thing Council can do is to try this in the spirit that it is intended but revisit if it is not working.

6. REPORTS FROM MANAGEMENT

There were five reports from Management for consideration in the open session.

6.1 Records of Assemblies of Councillors

The purpose of this report was to present the most recent written records of assemblies of Councillors for Council to note.

Moved: Cr Mayne

1. That Council note the written records of the assemblies of Councillors as detailed in Attachment 2 in the Management Report.

Seconded: Deputy Lord Mayor, Susan Riley

Cr Mayne made the following key comments: • surprised that there were meetings from 12 months ago presented in the current Records of Assemblies; • believe that the Records of Assemblies is a State Government initiative that has not attracted much interest and has created more work; • there is some value there, particularly with matters such as Australia 108 where the public can see what meetings Councillors attended; • there is a good deal of transparency with these details of the meetings including dates and attendees; and • not aware of anyone who has looked at the records and wish people would take it a bit more seriously.

The Lord Mayor, Robert Doyle made the following key comments: • the Records of Assembly of Councillors is actually a statutory requirement; and • from time to time things are overlooked and need to be presented to Council which is what happened here with the former Records.

Council Meeting —26 March 2013 4 6.2 Amendment to the IMAP Terms of Reference to Include New Members

The purpose of this report was to propose the addition of a 'New Members" clause in the Terms of Reference for the Inner Melbourne Action Plan (IMAP) Special Committees established under section 86 of the Local Government Act 1989 (the Act).

Moved: Cr Oke

1. That Council: 1.1. approves the addition of the "New Members" clause and other revisions to the Inner Melbourne Action Plan Implementation Committee Terms of Reference; and 1.2. invites the City of Maribyrnong to become a partner Council in the Inner Melbourne Action Plan from July 2013 and contribute to Inner Melbourne Action Plan on an equal basis.

Seconded: Deputy Lord Mayor, Susan Riley

Cr Oke made the following key comments: • support the recommendation as IMAP is one of many groups that Council works with when dealing with other municipalities; • IMAP in particular is looking at the inner Melbourne issues such as adjoining bike lanes or planning issues which has been quite productive; and • Maribyrnong is one of our neighbours and most certainly should be included in this important committee.

6.3 Docklands Community Boating Hub and Family Services Facility

The purpose of this report was to seek Council's endorsement of a proposal to work with Places Victoria and Lend Lease to finalise a suitable design and detailed estimate for the co-location of Family Services into the proposed Docklands Community Boating Hub and to seek pre-commitment contribution of $2.1 million to the development of the Family Services facility in addition to the $1.5 million already recommitted by Council in May 2012 to the development of the Community Boating Hub.

Moved: Cr Mayne

1. That Council: 1.1 approve in principle a contribution of $2.1 million to the Family Services facility subject to the design being approved by Council at a later date; 1.2 endorse work with Places Victoria and Lend Lease continuing on the design and detailed estimate of a co-located Community Boating Hub and Family Services facility; 1.3 requires management to commence a program of community engagement in relation to the Family services facility component; and 1.4 seeks a report in July 2013 in respect to outcome of community engagement and detailed design and estimates.

Seconded: Cr Leppert

Cr Mayne made the following key comments: • this proposal is to spend $3.6 million on a community boating and family services centre as part of the broader docklands library development; • there is an increase in the amount of funds that Council is planning to spend ahead of budget cycle; • item 7 in the Management Report talks of Lend Lease the developer requiring a commitment before March this financial year;

Council Meeting —26 March 2013 5 • support this, as Council is a minority contributor to a major capital works project; • Council knows that there is a back log of community investment projects in Docklands; • Council knows that they need to activate the water in Docklands and this project does just that in providing good community facilities; • it is a good use of rate payers funds; and • we need to sign off on this tonight so that we can make the commitment.

Rob Adams, Director City Design clarified that the end of March was given as a date to coincide with the development of the Docklands library construction. March was the final date that Council was able to request that same contractor to work on the Community Boating Hub and Family Services Facility.

Cr Leppert made the following key comments: • support this motion and thank Rob Adams for his additional comments; • it is a substantial amount of money even though we are small contributors; • it is a very substantial commitment of Council funds despite this: • Council has chosen to fund this even though at previous Future Melbourne Committee meetings it has been agreed that these types of funding discussions would occur in the April budget process; • it is an obviously needed and excellent contribution to Docklands and Council has already given its firm commitment that it is looking at doing just this sort of thing; and • there is a long way to go before final plans are approved but overall this is a good contribution to the community.

•Cr Oke made the following key comments: • support this recommendation however concerned about the contribution and the 'decision about this contribution before the budget process; • support the reasons as to why we should support this as this is a great community facility; and • will add to the encouragement of people using the boating facilities in Docklands.

The Lord Mayor, Robert Doyle made the following key comment: • recognise and thank former Lord Mayor, Trevor Huggard on his ongoing interest and championing of Dragon Boats as well as his ongoing contribution to a great community resource.

6.4 Subsidiary Director Appointment Process

The purpose of this report was to inform Council of the findings of the review of the Subsidiary Board Director's Appointment process.

Moved: Cr Mayne

1. That Council: 1.1. note the report from Crosstrees Consulting titled 'Subsidiary Director Appointment Process' (refer Attachment 2 of management report); 1.2. requests management to implement the recommendations contained on page five of the report (but noting that the Director Corporate Business will be made responsible for Council tasks associated with the appointment process); and 1.3. requests management present the updated Governance Protocols for formal endorsement by Council and its subsidiaries by the end of June 2013.

Seconded: Deputy Lord Mayor, Susan Riley

Cr Mayne made the following key comments: • this is an important report that follows on from two former director appointment processes that Council went through for Queen Victoria Market and Citywide; • there was a reference from the Future Melbourne Committee from October 2012 that went through to the Audit Committee seeking an independent report on those two processes, a report that has since come back via the Audit Committee;

Council Meeting —26 March 2013 6

• believe that from this report there are some lessons to be learned, however the report does not criticise the quality of the outcome; • in circumstances where politicians are appointing former politicians, Council should be taking the governance high-road which as noted in the report was not the case with the Citywide process; • the report goes through in detail where Council needs to update its appointment protocols and the constitutions of Citywide to bring them up to date; • the approach to Queen Victoria Market and Citywide in the past has been relatively hands off from Council; • Citywide has flourished under the hands off approach from Council; and • Council should be a little more involved so that the next time there is a board appointment, Council will not be subject to adverse media reports about the process chosen.

Deputy Lord Mayor, Susan Riley agreed with the recommendation on the board.

Cr Watts made the following key comments: • pleased to have this report as it confirms some of my concerns about the process; the recommendations satisfy my concerns about the appointments; and • the report points out the way forward for Council.

The Lord Mayor, Robert Doyle made the following key comments: • would like to correct Cr Mayne, it was not a politician appointing a politician, in fact it was a Council appointment and that is an important distinction; • would like to correct Cr Watts that this in fact does not show us a way forward but a way back as the Queen Victoria Market process was exactly the same as the Citywide process; • this evaluation occurred before the second iteration of the Citywide board appointments as an independent search company was used for that process; • two and a half years ago there was no process around these appointments so Councillors participated in this new process and appointed board members which is what we have in place for Queen Victoria Market; we went from no process to best processes for both subsidiary boards; the report states that "significantly more was done in the recruitment process than is required' which states that Council has done well in putting into place a process that is mature and independent; and • this report has enshrined the process put in place for Queen Victoria Market and is already in place for Citywide.

Cr Mayne made the following key comments: • do not agree entirely with what the Lord Mayor has stated; • once we have adopted all of the recommendations in the report we will then move to best practice; • there was no documented process or calling of referees to justify the rationale of appointments; and • the detail in the report is clear, there are strong points made to ensure that we have a fully documented process.

6.5 This agenda itern was withdrawn.

6.6 Media Analysis Services Contract No. 3476

The purpose of this report was to recommend Council award a tender for the provision of media analysis services for one year, with two one year extension options.

In response to a question regarding why the specific tenderer was chosen, Martin Cutter, Director City Business explained that all of the detail was available in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the open report. This includes clarification from the highest ranking tenderer on their submission, particularly in its plans on delivering services as well as performing some reference checks. From here, it was decided that the second highest ranking tenderer would serve Council better than the first ranking tenderer.

Council Meeting —26 March 2013 7

Moved: Cr Mayne

1. That Council resolve to award the contract for Media Analysis Services to Media Measures Pty Ltd for a term of one year commencing May 2013 with two one year options to extend the contract term, for an annual contract sum of $66,700 (exclusive of GST) and otherwise in accordance with the negotiated terms and conditions of contract.

Seconded: Cr Wood

Cr Mayne made the following key comments: • statistics state that in 2011-2012, 44 per cent of Council reports were dealt with confidentially so it is good that this statistic will fall now that tenders are being dealt with in open session so that we can offer a public explanation; • it is good that we can offer publically these rankings; and • not sure that every tender of small size should come to Council.

Cr Wood made comment that Council is a high volume media environment so having a quality tender is important.

Cr Leppert made the following key comments: • the amount of information assessing why one organisation is chosen over another is obviously brief for a variety of reasons, however do not understand those reasons; • good practice that these decisions are made where possible at Officer level and the recommendation is presented to Council for endorsement; • believe that the reasons why the second tenderer was chosen over the first tender is a little light on; • sure that everything that Officers have done before this is a correct decision; • believe that it would be good to have a little more information as to why the second tenderer was chosen over the other; and • support this motion on balance.

7. GENERAL BUSINESS

There were three items of general business for consideration in the open session.

7.1 Notice of Motion: Cr Watts, Request to Minister for Local Government on Electoral Matters

Moved: Cr Watts

1. That Council: 1.1. notes that the Minister for Local Government has recently committed to reviewing aspects of the City of Melbourne Act 2001 in relation to voter eligibility; 1.2. welcomes this review, noting that there is a need to sustain public confidence in the electoral system; 1.3. requests that the review should include the opportunity for public submissions; 1.4. resolves to write to the Minister for Local Government requesting that the scope of the review be expanded to include all aspects of the City of Melbourne Act 2001, and related legislation and regulations, which are unique to the City of Melbourne Act 2001, noting that the review would then include but not be limited to: 1.4.1. provisions to protect the integrity of the voters' roll specifically its capacity to be audited and enrolments verified; 1.4.2. the deeming provisions; Council Meeting —26 March 2013 8 1.4.3. direct election of the Lord Mayor and Deputy Lord Mayor; 1.4.4. the company nominee provisions; 1.4.5. the voter eligibility criteria, particularly those relating to non-residents and non-citizens.

Seconded: Cr Leppert

Cr Watts made the following key comments in support of the motion: • this is a good opportunity for Council to put forward this recommendation given the media reports suggest that the Minister is looking into aspects of the City of Melbourne Act 2001; • we know that there are many aspects of the Act that require review; • note that the previous Council acted in this way and certain outcomes were achieved, however more needs to be done; • Council was contacted this week by the MAV who is putting forward a submission to the Minister with problems they see with the City of Melbourne Act 2001 and the Local Government Act 1989; and • interested in supporting the MAV in its endeavours.

Cr Leppert made the following key comments in support of the motion: • this is an opportunistic motion but in the best possible way motion as the Minister has announced this review; • however unsure of what form this review will take; • it is unclear whether the Electoral Matters Committee of State Parliament could take this on as the Terms of Reference do not expand to the City of Melbourne; • have heard on the grapevine that the Minister is looking for an independent panel members to be a reference body to run some of these ideas through; • while we do not know what form the review will take now would be the opportune time to ask the Minister to expand the review to include the City of Melbourne electoral system; • those items might include, but not be limited to what Councillor Watts outlined in part 1.4 of her motion; • parts of the electoral system that are unique to the City of Melbourne should be reviewed as a matter of course; • a letter has been received from the Victorian Electoral Commission welcoming the resolution from the Future Melbourne Committee; and • now is the perfect opportunity for public submissions and have the confidence of the public going forward.

Lord Mayor, Robert Doyle made the following key comments in opposition to the motion: • reviews of the City of Melbourne Act 2001 have been sought by Councillors from 2004 onwards; • the last Local Government Minister, Richard Wynne, was not interested in reviews of the Act; • urge Councillors to read the document 'A Way Forward' on which the Act is based • there is a view that there are wide spread requests from the public which is not the case as there were only 12 submitters in the Electoral Representation Review; • would have supported this motion if it stopped at 1.1, however the rest of the motion, does not suggest the inclusiveness of people; • all evidence about participation rates of postal versus attendance voting shows that City of Melbourne had 60 per cent participation through postal voting compared to its neighbouring Councils Yarra and Port Phillip, who had attendance voting and had participation rates of 51 and 49 per cent respectively; • no data supports that there is more participation through attendance voting; • the harm in looking at the direct election of the Lord Mayor and Deputy Lord Mayor is the credibility of the City of Melbourne, given that governments have recently legislated the direct appointment of the Lord Mayor for cities such as Geelong; • City of Sydney voter turnout is 53-54 per cent, so in terms of City of Melbourne's position we are doing very well; • the system City of Melbourne has with postal voting is doing well compared to attendance voting; • believe this motion seeks to advance particular agendas which will not do Council any good; and • commend the City of Melbourne staff who worked and reported issues to the Victorian Electoral Commission.

Cr Mayne made the following key comments in support of the motion: • do not feel that Council should shy away from examinations of design of governance systems which is basically what this is;

Council Meeting —26 March 2013 9 • the problem with direct election of the Lord Mayor is that Council loses the talent pool to the system of those other candidates unelected for Lord Mayor; and • support postal voting but do not see why there should be no further examination in to the process given that other candidates have also wanted to run for Council; and • there is no other electoral roll in the world that has our design, and while a supporter, feel that it should occasionally be looked at from time to time.

The Deputy Lord Mayor, Susan Riley made the following key comments in opposition to the motion: • cannot support this motion because have a lot of respect for the Minister who has come a long way working under the guidelines of Government; • do not feel that it is the City of Melbourne's role to dictate who should be appointed to their panel; and • it is not Council's role to be putting up a motion like this.

Cr Oke made the following key comments in support of the motion: • this is calling on a review and not calling on what is wrong or right; • Councillors have consistently called for a review to occur; • the previous review that was undertaken drew hardly any submissions as the Terms of Reference were narrow and did not include the unique provisions; • the direct appointment of the Deputy Lord Mayor is unique to the City of Melbourne and is a unique element to the City Of Melbourne Act 2001; and • do not see Council as making any demands but merely asking that these elements be considered in the review.

Cr Wood made the following key comments in opposition to the motion: • when we call on a review we need to be a little more honest with our intentions; • the way this recommendation is written assumes that the system is broken and do not believe it is; and • it is important that Councillors maintain relationships with Ministers, particularly with upholding respect to their position in Council.

Cr Foster made the following key comments in support of the motion: • when Council make comparative reference to Council elections local to the City of Melbourne, using a benchmark of 60 per cent response to election participation is incredibly low and anything Council can do to look into improving that should be encouraged; • any Minister who took their portfolio seriously and had respect for that would welcome requests such as this; and • this motion is a request to consider an expansion of this review.

Cr Watts made the following key comments in closing debate: • have heard some strange ideas come forward as the motion does not say anything about attendance voting, nor does it insult the Minister; • believe that the Minister will be looking at the problem with the electoral roll; • there is evidence that our constituents do not understand this system and that is clear; • there is evidence that our participation rates are abysmally low; • this motion is respectfully asking our Minister to review the City of Melbourne Act 2001; and • this is reasonable and necessary.

The motion was put with the following Councillors voting in favour of the motion: Councillors Foster, Leppert, Mayne, Oke and Watts and the following Councillors voting against the motion: The Chair, Lord Mayor, Robert Doyle, Deputy Lord Mayor, Susan Riley, and Councillors Louey, Pinder-Mortimer and Wood.

The Chair, Lord Mayor, Robert Doyle used his casting vote to defeat the motion.

Council Meeting —26 March 2013 10

7.2 Notice of Motion: Cr Foster, Consultation on Begging in the CBD

Moved: Cr Foster

1. That Council resolves to: 11. In relation to a consultation on begging in the CBD request that the Chair of the People City Portfolio assume responsibility for any ongoing discussions with stakeholders for the specific purpose of collating views, ideas and suggestions on this issue (which may still involve Council Officers); 1.2. Request the Chair of the People City Portfolio to report the outcomes of these discussions to the Future Melbourne Committee (FMC) at the earliest opportunity in order that any further action may be determined by the (FMC).

Seconded: Cr Watts

Cr Foster made the following key comments in support of the motion: • there has been significant concern raised with me about media comments regarding begging, in particular, in relation to issues relating to consultation;

• acknowledge that there has been some consultation with a large welfare body and police, however the concern raised is that the consultation has not gone far enough and welfare bodies have not been approached nor included; • believe that some information in relation to the court system has been inadequate, principally that those listed for the diversion program in Victoria are to be charged with a criminal offence; • this could give rise to further issues with those people already caught up in the system; and • this motion is to enforce the Council Portfolio process whereby matters such as this falling under the People City Portfolio refer to the Chair of that Portfolio and that they be consulted on the issues and be actively involved thereafter.

Cr Watts made the following key comments in support of the motion: • the Chair of People City Portfolio has a great deal of expertise in this matter and would handle this matter very well; • do not want to ignore the issue of begging in our city but need to be careful how we deal with it; and • is not confident that Council has reached the right point yet in its consultations.

The Lord Mayor, Robert Doyle made the following key comments in opposition to the motion: • this matter came to me following approaches by the Salvation Army and the Police to discuss begging in the city; • two meetings were held with The Public Interest Law Clearing House (VIC) Inc. (FILCH), representatives of the Salvation Army, and the Magistrates Court to discuss diversion programs; • it is not the city's responsibility to deal with this, but the group of people approached the Lord Mayor; • point 2 of the motion is not possible as Council cannot delegate responsibility to an individual Councillor; • the substance of this motion is against the provisions of the Local Government Act 1989; • if a Councillor who is a Portfolio Chair wants to take over a matter they should approach the Lord Mayor directly; • Council needs to act as a catalyst to bring these people together; • The Salvation Army came to the Lord Mayor as they hoped that he could bring together a group who could determine a better model moving forward; and • cannot support this motion.

Cr Mayne made the following key comments in support of the motion: • note that the Lord Mayor has made some reasonable points and that Councillors should approach him; • however, believe that the Lord Mayor's Herald Sun column is not unlike a press release and prior to releasing information the matter could have been discussed with the relevant portfolio holder; and • there are lessons on both sides to be taken from this.

Council Meeting - 26 March 2013 11

Cr Leppert made the following key comments in opposition to the motion: • there are a few different interpretations of what the motion might mean, however my interpretation is that it is a reminder to Council that the portfolio system in place must be prominent when Council conducts its business; • any portfolio holder can formally or informally seek out information at any time; • with the first part of the motion gone, believes that the remainder of the motion is now unnecessary; and • sympathetic to the mover of this motion and welcome any Councillor putting forward a notice of motion in relation to begging in the city.

Cr Oke made the following key comments in opposition to the motion: • while Councillors have been given portfolios, Councillors have also been elected to act as Councillors on behalf of the city and speak to many stakeholders on many issues; • the motion seems restrictive on Councillors to only speak to people relating to their portfolio; and • will ensure any issues raised with me are referred on to the relevant portfolio holder.

Cr Wood made the following comments in opposition to the motion: • Cr Foster has great skills in this area and as Portfolio Chair he has a lot to offer; • voting against this motion because understand that the Lord Mayor gets asked many things every day and his role is enshrined; • do not want to get to the point where Councillors should put Notices of Motion forward where they could easily walk down the corridor to discuss with the Lord Mayor; • Councillors need to maintain the intention to work with the relevant portfolio holder; and • while speaking against the motion, acknowledge Cr Foster's expertise.

Cr Foster made the following key comments in closing debate: • thanks to the speakers for and against as it has raised some important points; and • it is important to consult portfolio holders.

The motion was put and lost with the following Councillors voting in favour of the motion: Councillors Foster, Mayne and Watts and the following Councillors voting against the motion: The Lord Mayor, Robert Doyle, Deputy Lord Mayor, Susan Riley, Councillors Leppert, Oke, Louey Pinder-Mortimer and Wood.

7.3 Notice of Motion: Cr Mayne, Ministerial Planning Advice — Disclosure Motion

Moved: Cr Mayne

1. That Council instructs management make available on the City of Melbourne website in the Planning and Building section: 1.1. all formal submissions made by the City of Melbourne since 1 July 2008 (that is, whichever of the submissions made by officers or by the Future Melbourne Committee or by Council was the final version) to the Minister for Planning on planning permit applications (or planning scheme amendments to facilitate developments) which exceed 25,000 square metres, the threshold level for ministerial responsibility; 1.2. link to the decisions (including permits and incorporate documents where relevant) made by the Minister for applications associated with each of the submissions referred to in paragraph 1.1; 1.3. disclose whether a proposal has been commenced or completed and briefly describe any substantive material differences between each of the City of Melbourne submissions and the Ministers' decisions referred to in paragraphs 1.1 and 1.2; 1.4. be continually updated into the future by officers including as to whether the development has been commenced or concluded; and 1.5. the structural changes to the website and information related to 2012-13 decisions be publically accessible by 31 July 2013 and the archive of past decisions back until 1 July 2008 be progressively back-filled and completed by 30 June, 2014. 2. That council officer submissions on applications and planning scheme amendments related to development proposals exceeding 25,000 square metres automatically be referred to Future Melbourne Committee.

Council Meeting —26 March 2013 12 Seconded: Cr Leppert

Cr Mayne made the following key comments: • this motion is in response to comments made by the Planning Minister in relation to recent quotes in newspapers about Melbourne's skyline; • the Minister has approved $4.445 billion of projects this financial year; • this motion is about providing information and proposes that Officers go back to July 2008 and list on the City of Melbourne website its formal submissions to the Minister; • Council must provide relevant data and context when making information available; • the website should describe what our Officers did and what the Minister said, that way the public has a better understanding about what the Minister does; • hopefully this empowers Officers and gives more status to them; and • this is simply disclosing the professional Officer views and mandates considerations coming to Future Melbourne Committee.

Cr Leppert made the following key comments: • thanks to Cr Mayne and believe Council is arriving at a good motion; • this motion is not going to war with the Minister; it aims to disclose information in a neutral way; • this will allow any observer to assess information candidly and as a Council, that is a very easy thing to say but on those grounds alone it should be supported; • what Council is effectively doing is changing the delegations policy in relation to Planning Applications without actually changing the document itself by requesting that all Ministerial Planning Applications (TPMs) and other applications above 25,000 square metres, come to Future Melbourne Committee; • there might be time constraints from time to time as to why an automatic deferral might be difficult but if this is going to throw up any problems Council can revisit the matter; • hopefully this will put more public pressure on the Minister as to why the Minister is making the decision the way he is; • the Minister adopts the vast majority of the recommendations that Council put to him and Council should not undermine that; • but it is Council's advice to reduce the height and bulk of proposals that the Minister most often ignores; and • if this motion can inform the public where the Minister is breaching the Melbourne Planning Scheme, that is a good thing and provides pressure.

Cr Wood made the following key comments: • support the motion and believe it is a good one; • this shows respect to our Officers that their work is valid; and • Council needs to be mindful that a lot of this work is done on sound relationships with the Minister.

Cr Oke made the following key comments: • add support to the resolution; • note that this started last Council term and arose from the issues of Freshwater Place and the Council process; • Council supported a resolution at the end last year as to how the planning department could make it more transparent; • thanks to Councillors Mayne and Leppert in making the recommendation a practical one; and • thanks to this Council and the previous Council on this recommendation.

Cr Watts made the following key comments: • wish to support the motion which is working toward Council's transparency agenda; • see that this information release is empowering and enabling constituents; and • that this information will be on the City Of Melbourne website is an obligation to share information and decisions.

The Lord Mayor, Robert Doyle made the following comments: • what we are bringing to this is a new way of bringing this data together which is already publicly available but is currently available without context; • the data is not as powerful as it could be;

Council Meeting —26 March 2013 13 • take issue with Cr Leppert's comments as the Minister is not in breach of the Planning Scheme; he actually has power over it and can exempt himself; • problem is that if the Minister wants tall buildings, let him put it in the Planning Scheme and let him identify it just as Council has; • there is a natural tension between Council and Government intervention which should always be measured on a case-by-case view; and • hope this motion will help in resolving the tension.

Cr Mayne made the following key comments: • take up Cr Wood's comments as they were useful about relationships as it is important for Council to understand where the power resides; and • make sure that the information that Council releases is sober, professional expressions by planning officers to ensure we have a professional relationship with the Minister.

7.4 Petition: Suspend "Sister City" status of St. Petersburg

Moved: Cr Oke

1. That Council receive the change.org petition presented by Carl Katter to suspend the "Sister City" status of St Petersburg.

Seconded: Cr Leppert

Cr Oke made the following key comments: • the Lord Mayor, Robert Doyle, Cr Leppert and Cr Oke received this petition on Friday 22 March 2013; and • the petition is asking that the City of Melbourne suspend its sister-city status with St Petersburg until they revoke their harsh anti-gay laws.

8. URGENT BUSINESS

There were no items of urgent business.

9. CLOSURE OF OPEN MEETING

Moved: Deputy Lord Mayor, Susan Riley

That pursuant to sections 89(2) (a), (d) and (h) of the Local Government Act 1989, the meeting of the Council be closed to members of the public for the consideration of the reports under the following categories:

• 6.7.1, 6.8.1 and 6.11.1 as they contain information which if released would prejudice the Council or any person; • 6.9.1 as it contains information relating to Contractual Matters; and • 6.10.1 as it contains information relating to Personnel Matters.

Seconded: Cr Foster

Council Meeting —26 March 2013 14 The motion was put and carried unanimously with the following Councillors present: The Chair, Lord Mayor, Robert Doyle, Deputy Lord Mayor, Susan Riley, Councillors Foster Leppert, Louey, Mayne, Oke, Pinder- Mortimer, Watts and Wood.

The Chair, Lord Mayor, Robert Doyle declared the open meeting closed to members of the public at 7pm.

Confirmed at the m uncil on 30 April 2013.

Chair Lord Mayor, Robert Doyle

Council Meeting —26 March 2013 15